A report by the Defence Committee, concludes that the UK Armed Forces have key capability and stockpile shortages and are losing personnel faster than they can recruit.
Read the report by clicking here.
The report finds that Government will fail to achieve the desired level of high-intensity warfighting readiness without rapidly accelerating reforms to increase and sustain a thriving industrial base and to improve its “offer” to Service personnel.
“Ready for war?” finds that, while it is correctly a matter of national pride that whenever the Armed Forces are asked to carry out a task, they find a way, overstretch has negatively impacted high intensity warfighting readiness due to the sheer pace of operations and other commitments. It has also had a personal cost for Service personnel, impacting retention.
This has created a vicious cycle. The Committee urges the Government to act to break this cycle, and do so swiftly, to ensure that the UK is ready to face the increasingly challenging threat environment.
Recruitment and retention
The Committee is increasingly concerned about the crisis in the recruitment and retention of both Regulars and Reservists in the Armed Forces.
The report concludes that the demands of operations make recovery and training harder to achieve. As a result, the Committee says it is unsurprising that more people are leaving the Forces than joining them.
The report finds that the Government (while acknowledging the issue and laying the foundations for improvement) has not yet moved at the required pace to address issues around recruitment and retention.
It calls on the Ministry of Defence (MOD) to produce an implementation timetable with measurable deliverables based on the recommendations within the Reserve Forces 2030 Review and the Haythornthwaite Review of Armed Forces Incentivisation.
Stockpiles and retaining capabilities
The Committee is concerned to hear that the £1.95 billion awarded as part of the Spring 2023 Budget may instead be used to meet budget shortfalls, instead of being used to replenish and increase stockpiles.
The Committee calls on the MOD to reconsider and produce a breakdown of the allocation of the awards from the Autumn 2022 and Spring 2023 Budgets.
The Committee also welcomes the likely announcement before Easter of policy changes intended to improve procurement processes, so as to sustain and increase the UK’s industrial capacity. The Committee underlines the importance of production of munitions, both in the context of Ukraine and any future war.
The Committee finds that, in the event of a prolonged high-intensity war, equipment which is even halfway viable for regeneration is better than none. The report calls for capabilities to be retained even after retirement, including exploring the use of alternative storage solutions which may be more effective at lower cost such as access to US reserve storage facilities.
Chair’s comment
Chair of the Defence Committee, Sir Jeremy Quin MP, said:
“Our Armed Services are a world-class fighting force. We are fortunate that they contain highly trained, skilled and experienced Service personnel. When undertaking their duties, they demonstrate immense bravery and flexibility, responding to a range of crises and threats worldwide without hesitation, never wavering in their commitment to protecting our nation. However, a steady, continuous drip of operations and ongoing commitments has meant the military is unable to devote sufficient training and resources to high-intensity warfighting. While able to deploy at short notice and to fulfil commitments, our inquiry found that readiness for all-out, prolonged war has received insufficient attention and needs intense ongoing focus.
On top of this, the high tempo of operations and unrelenting pressure on our Services has led to a drop in retention, compounded by a period of low recruitment and difficulties introducing and maintaining capabilities, thereby creating a vicious cycle. It is welcome that 20,000 UK Forces will be deployed as part of the NATO Exercise Steadfast Defender 2024. It is through exercises such as these that we can better understand our readiness and train for effective working alongside our NATO Allies. This is the largest such exercise since the end of the Cold War: regular exercises of this nature will be invaluable and will need to be accommodated on an ongoing basis.
Today’s report calls on Government to start making difficult choices: either invest fully in our military or recognise that proper prioritisation of warfighting will mean less availability for other tasks. We need to be strategic about the resources we have, including how to maintain and replenish stockpiles, and consider how to ensure that equipment – even after retirement – does not go to waste. Importantly, the MOD must address its problems with recruitment and retention head on. We are calling on the MOD to publish the recommendations it plans on taking forward from recent reviews, including the Haythornthwaite Review, and provide Parliament with a detailed implementation plan.
We are used to the Armed Forces consistently delivering whatever is asked of them, we need to ensure that in doing so we are not depriving them of the time, resources and training they need to fight and win a high-intensity prolonged war alongside our allies. Readiness is essential to provide the confidence we need and effective deterrence to our adversaries.”
Same problems as in Germany… Sounds so familiar.
US congressional committee said the same thing about their military and they spend $800 billion a year, Actually every democratic country from Japan and Australia to France and Canada are saying exactly the same thing. Meanwhile in China, Russia and North Korea apparently all is well and the armed forces are fully funded and have no shortfalls in equipment or manpower. They are calling for 3% of GDP to be spent on the military, I remember when we spent 3% of GDP on the military and it was underfunded then as well, I remember when we spent over 4% and… Read more »
It depends how you view it Jim.
A proper SDSR and an additional 12 ish billion a year at 3% GDP would make a massive difference.
We don’t need vast increases,we need to return to a balanced force structure with a little depth to it.
Something akin to the size and disposition of the Armed forces in 2000 ( with a modern twist) no one is thinking a return to 900 MBT’s and 31 fighter squadrons of 1989.
Actually John the days of 900 MBT and 31 fighter squadrons and 50-55 frigates and Destroyers sounds about what the UK needs right now the way the world is .But I know and all on this site is that to sort problems out we must go to 3%GDP on Defence and Get there head’s out of the Bloody sand .Cheers 🍺🇬🇧
Morning Andrew, with the cost of equipment today and the vast increases in infrastructure needed to return to anything like our 1980’s posture, we would need to spend a sustained 6% on defence for decades. Another £55 odd billion per annum??
Serious tax hikes and cuts elsewhere would be required.
An affordable 3%, will return us to a small but balanced minimum capability that we never should have fallen below in the first place.
Your post sounds about right to me John 👍
Id be happy with a return to a small but capable force. If 3% meant an army of +80,000 troops- ideally 125K with reserves all properly equipped A navy with at least 26 escort sized vessels and both carriers equipped with enough f35bs, drones and helos Aukus returning the RN to 11+ SSNs (should never have dropped below the golden 9 number deemed years ago as the absolute minimum. RAF has to get back up to +200 high performance jets backed up by enough enablers such as E7 wedgetails, Poseidon, Voyager, Joint Rivet and drones If getting to 3% ensures… Read more »
Totally agree, a return to a sensible force level…
I agree with you John. We do not need “vast” increases., although some extra would be good. We need to spend what we have wisely. A 1000 or more Boxers when we only have 148 tanks and those not before 2030? An artillery regiment in being but with no artillery? A destroyer in the Gulf that can’t defend itself against surface targets? I could of course go on but you get my meaning. Planning is key.🙄
Totally Geoff. I would envisage something broadly along the below lines… First off £1 billion on wages and bonus increases across the board, to reduce the flow leaving and increase recruitment. Army 115.000 regulars + the new AR structure. MBT force returned to 350. 5 Armoured regiments, with all the required modern supports in Artillery, well protected and armed tracked and wheeled mechanised and modern logistics etc. All underpinned with helo ( light, medium , heavy) support of the right size. 90 AH64E, to facilitate serious organic air support and well equipped and deployable light forces. RAF a return to… Read more »
🙄 I’d go down on my knees and thank God at even a quarter of that shopping list mate. Never going to happen.
Modest increases however should be possible.
I’d get on my knees for the FAA aspect alone. 😂😂
That level of force increase across the board is unrealistic and unsustainable now. But I see what you mean.
We need to have a strategy based on a well defined but more limited set of objectives to start with that can be fully resourced and funded and then see if it can be grown.
A top-up order of 60 Typhoons plus 200 Tempest and 10,000 Royal Marines with full Amphibious and Tactical Airlift support? Only in a letter to Santa I’m afraid.
John, Lusty and Daniele, that’s just my take on what’s needed, I appreciate I’ve probably ‘ overshot’, but with an injection of an additional 12 billion in funding per annum, the above would be achievable.
It would require careful budgeting, but it represents a one third increase in the defence budget, it should certainly be possible.
One of the major concerns for me would be the MOD taking the extra billions and wasting them.
T83 would move from a cautious approach to a clean sheet 15,000 ton two billion a pop monster and if we ordered 350 MBT’s, some bright spark would make the case for a new UK MBT , built from scratch, wasting billions more…..
Any additional money has to be spent carefully, for maximum military effect, not just fed into the defence industrial complex as job creation schemes.
Its not unsustainable, it is exactly what we would be ordering to happen on day 1 if there was a substantial war against Russia or China. Then we would be ordering and splashing the cash desperately trying to resolve capability gaps and the weakness in numbers that HMG have persistently allowed to happen. Only the Ukraine war has shown that you cant just throw money at a problem and miraculously it is resolved. Defence capabilities and numbers take years of sustained and continuous investment- so 3% over 10 years will get us to a level John Clark quite rightly aspires… Read more »
Well I agree 3% of GDP is the way to go but was suggesting a more tailored approach to improvements along the lines of other posters. More kit means more pilots, operators and maintainers; more real estate snd infrastructure; a larger training pipeline with all that entails and a bigger supply chain. We were talking peacetime but I agree in a war footing it’s a different ballgame. But a reminder that after war most armed forces return to a smaller more sustainable level. I just thought John was being over ambitious. Growing the Royal Marines from 3 Commandos to a… Read more »
Wow! I’ve been off line for a couple of days John. I’ll give this some thought.😉
Sorry John. I’ve been a bit busy this week. First off… I agree with the idea of putting money into the pot. Surely the best way to recruit is to retain people who know the job. maybe an incentive scheme for regulars along the lines of the AR. On size and equipment I am more modest,although if we ever get to three per cent what you’re suggesting is in the field of what we could do. With the army for now I would get the rest of the Ch.2’s upgraded to give us around two hundred., to form five regiments,… Read more »
Morning Geoff, totally agree, if additional money is forthcoming (looking doubtful as the penny has finally dropped with our future overlords that there’s no money in the pot), your approach is absolutely correct.
The world situation absolutely demands however that we head back to 3%.
“Most of our problems are in trying to keep up with the US”
If only. If that was true we wouldn’t have dropped defence spending by almost half the amount of gdp America spends on its defence.
Russia is clearly a threatening country and is about 1000 miles away as the crow flies (cruise missile range). You’re also talking about defending the sea lanes to keep the supplies of goods that we depend on coming to our shores. Then there’s the fact that we have geographically dispersed overseas territories that also need defending, as well as sizeable expat communities who also expect the protection of the Crown. We are also one of the world’s largest sources of FDI outflows. We have significant global interests, so we need global power-projection capabilities to protect them.
So, the short-term answer is, to boost our missile defence capabilities to deter any potential aggressor giving us the option to defend against any attack from land sea or air and strike back if necessary at range. This would give us time to take stock and hopefully rebuild our armed forces to a suitable level. Allocate £5/6 BILLION, and just think what we could get for this amount of money. 20 Aug 2023 “Australia will become just the third nation after the US and the UK to have access to Tomahawk cruise missiles, with $1.3bn being spent on 200 of… Read more »
Always good to see others taking homeland defence seriously.Taiwan deploys Sky Bow III air-defence systems 05 February 2024 “Taiwan has initiated deployment of its Sky Bow III surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems – known locally as Tien Kung III – at existing MIM-23 Hawk and Sky Bow II air-defence system sites, a Republic of China Army (RoCA) officer told Janes on 29 January. The move follows a budgetary report submitted by Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense (MND) to the Legislative Yuan in October 2023, which said that it will transform 12 existing MIM-23 Hawk and Sky Bow II sites into facilities… Read more »
Bears and woods spring to mind.
No one listens though.
And the Government will quote meaningless statistics. Quote we are a 2%er with chest thumping and do NOTHING!!!
But it’s the most money we’ve ever spent in cash terms! Inflation and the extra £3.3bn to handle the change in lease accounting practises will be quietly ignored by that statement. More fiddle factors. Welcome back Lord Cameron.
My point exactly. The man who rolled the strategic deterrent into the defence budget resulting in a 12.5 % cut. Crippling the conventional defence budget.
They have been warned that war is coming and the best and cheapest deterrent is a strong defence. But unfortunately “ I told you so” is poor comfort when the tanks are rolling across Europe.
Absolutely 👍
Yer such a wise man 😕
UKDJ Committe has been urging them to boost defence for years as well!
I wonder how many at the MoD actually peruse these boards?
I know of a fair few who do. 😉
Well that is good to know mate. Nice to see you showing your face here from time to time.
I like to pop in. Work has become somewhat busy for whatever reason … !
A little of that ‘Wilderness Years’ syndrome I thinks. All three services suffered unnecessary cuts over the last twenty + years and it shows. Both the NHS and the MOD need a one-off tax award to ensure real progress in these organisations. As long as the UK plays a major role in World defence the cost burden will increase expediently year on year. Yet, somehow consecutive governments make cuts and at the same time increase our overseas commitments.
We have the six highest defence budget in the world and other militaries maintain larger armies, air forces and in some cases navies too, with a smaller budget. What’s going on?
Mainly due to the costs of CASD plus legacy expenditure on Pensions etc.
Tried to explain this many times. 1. A military is not judged on numbers alone. 2. Pay and conditions, both military, civil MoD, and contractors will vary. 3. Nukes. 4.SSN. 5.SSBN. 6.Large legacy estate and it’s maintenance, contractors cost a lot more here than many other nations. Example, RAF Marham refurb. 7. High technology and ISTAR assets others lack while they’re spending money on shiny things that look great….But do they have the capability to USE them? 8. Government, MoD procurement delays costing money due to stretching things out forcin year savings, costs more over all. Ask HMT about that….… Read more »
Hi Daniele, Well there is an awful lot gloomy posts ain’t there! Understandably I guess. So I thought I’d highlight some positive news. According to Navy Lookout there is a good chance that CSG25 may sail with two UK squadrons of F35b, possibly 24 aircraft (although I think 16 to 20 is more likely). Also, given HMS Queen Elizabeth’s misfortune HMS Prince of Wales is going to be well prepared for CSG25 so there is some positive news. Granted it isn’t much in the great scheme of things but the sky’s are plenty grey enough as it is. Plus, the… Read more »
Publicity is needed, badly. We know that hardly any civilians have a clue or any interest in defence matters. While welcome, I don’t have much faith in extra press coverage making much difference with either main party. I’m fully expecting the Labour party to cancel CSG25, so it may well be moot how many aircraft it has. Far too “imperialist” getting involved in matters beyond Europe which do not effect us. But actually, as we know, they do effect us. And we have to be there. Or else China, Russia and other states hostile to the west will fill that… Read more »
Go at it DM👍
The biggest problem we and every other country faces is the rapidly increasing cost ( both acquisition and support) of ever more sophisticated equipment and the timescales of design and delivery. The cost inevitably leads to smaller numbers; the timescales mean no government sees the result of any major procurement decision. New equipment doesn’t reach FOC for years, even decades. Some improvement could be achieved by having longer production runs of proven equipment – instead of wasting 20 years thinking about the global combat ship, we could have continued building type 23s, upgrading their weapons over time. But we are… Read more »
The Poole Yacht Club maintains a larger fleet of vessels than the RN, but it doesn’t make it a more effective fighting force. A large, technologically primitive force is just cannon fodder against a somewhat smaller modern force, which is why even the USN has far fewer hulls than it did in the Reagan era. We have highly sophisticated platforms and systems but we are now too lacking in mass and the only way around that involves a lot more spending.
They are also not supporting the cost of a very expensive strategic defence capability out of the defence budget. Until Cameron came along the Strategic defence budget was largely funded outwith the conventional budget.
That and the policy to always buy British when a cheaper off the shelf solution is available.
Some of it depends on what is in the budget. I have said it on here before, my mother at 96 is part of the budget, quite rightly she has my late father’s pension. But she can make no contribution to the defence of the realm. I would like to see a much more detailed review which takes into account the multiple threats we face and then the cost of countering said threats. Other costs such as pensions should be kept separate.
Simple solutions. A haircut of other departments budgets, I read 4% would do. Buy proven, off the shelf kit. Stop propping up the MIC, it is a waste of money. Introduce a good, well salaried career structure for the military. Uplift cadet units in schools/colleges and ignore leftard teachers. Cut the waste everywhere. Reinstate a proper TA, for use in country as well as overseas. If numbers are needed? Conscript, refuseniks are jailed for the term they would have served. There, simples innit?
Conscription wouldn’t go down politically thanks to decades worth of demoralisation and subversion.
People on the left don’t want to join because Britain is not worth defending because it is racist and evil and people on the right don’t want to because they think the country has become too woke to be worth defending. There would be riots.
Riots are riots then. So they get put down. When left or right, whatever that means, realise the seriousness of a situation? They will comply. Look at how the sheep took the Covid medicine from weak government. Structural change in society can take place, look at Sweden.
Remembering when you could fine a TA centre in every town even villages all round the UK once .Were I live there were dozens 🤔 most gone now 🙄
Prisons are already rammed full, where would you plan to put people who refuse to be conscripted? There’s plenty of mishandled funds to be found within the MoD’s budget before you start scalping other departments funding.
Tented camps are a good place, Nissen Huts are just cheap wriggly tin. And razor wire is cheap. And the 4% figure comes from a DT article today.
So you wouldn’t want to put them up in hotels or barges then?
Warm words, nothing will change, this goverment is not interested in Defence. Or really has no idea where to start. no wonder no one joins up all you see in the press etc is bad news, lack of funds, old kit, poor living quarters.
Sadly all true – an inept Conservative government uable to fulfil the basics and a Labour government in waiting filled from top to bottom with members ideologically against any support for “Military Imperialism” – we’re f****d.
Denmark is the latest country- following Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, Sweden and Germany to predict and warn that Russia will attempt to attack NATO’s eastern flank in a 3-5 year timeframe. Our own defence select committee and military chiefs have expressed grave concern around the readiness of the UK armed forces to engage in high intensity warfare vs a peer or near peer nation. Nothing seems to get through to this government of incompetence that the era of peace is over and a significant uptick in defence expenditure and the size of and fighting power of the UK armed… Read more »